More money might flow into Lewis & Clark Rural Water System

House OKs bill for water projects, but it's tied to cuts

Jul. 11, 2013

Written by

The Lewis & Clark Rural Water System and other water projects are another step closer to getting badly needed money for construction.

Two weeks after a U.S. Senate committee approved a $25 million fund to be shared among six existing water projects, the full U.S. House approved a bill creating a similar fund.

South Dakota lawmakers were key in securing the water funding in both houses.

But the two proposals have significant differences, and the money might never end up being appropriated.

Lewis & Clark originally was funded through the congressional earmark process, where lawmakers could direct federal money to specific projects. But when Congress banned earmarks and began slashing spending two years ago, water projects found their funding all but eliminated.

Recent money for the in-progress Lewis & Clark, which takes Missouri River water to Sioux Falls and other towns in the region, has been insufficient to allow any new construction. That means communities in Minnesota and Iowa who are supposed to get water from the project have been left dry.

Indeed, recent funding hasn’t even kept up with inflation, meaning Lewis & Clark has gotten further from completion, the project’s executive director Troy Larson has said.

If Congress approves some version of the $25 million funds created by both the House and Senate bills, Lewis & Clark will be able to compete for that money with the five other pre-existing water projects. The money it could expect to get would be enough to allow it to resume construction.

“The federal government needs to be a better partner when it comes to projects like Lewis & Clark,” Rep. Kristi Noem said in a statement after the House adopted her amendment setting aside the money. “Communities in South Dakota have paid their share of the funding for this project, and the federal government needs to follow through on its funding commitment.”

Water funding in the Senate bill was championed by Sen. Tim Johnson.

“It’s encouraging to have the House follow suit in increasing funding for these vitally important infrastructure projects,” Johnson said in a statement.

But the two bills are different. Noem secures the water project money by cutting $30 million from the Department of Energy’s solar energy programs and administrative expenses, while the Senate’s money doesn’t have a specific source.

The House version makes $5 million in cuts permanent, reducing the deficit. Controversially, the larger House bill containing the water project funding also contains steep cuts in a broad range of green energy programs. It passed the House on Wednesday night largely along party lines.

The Senate version, in contrast, increases spending on renewable energy. It passed the Senate Appropriations Committee last month and has yet to be voted on by the full body.

There’s $90 billion in additional spending in the Senate bill, which reverses the across-the-board “sequester” cuts that went into effect earlier this year, compared to the House version which preserves the sequester cuts.

“The key challenge will be enacting a final appropriations bill,” Johnson said.